Albemarle County
Planning Commission

June 3, 2008

The Albemarle County Planning
Commission held a meeting and public hearing on Tuesday, June 3, 2008, at 6:00
p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire
Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.

·This proposal is for the co-location of a personal wireless
service facility on an existing tower. The applicant is requesting the
installation of an array of antennas on an existing 250’ tower that will not be
flushed mounted. Therefore, it requires a Tier III special use permit. The
site is located off of Rio Road adjacent to the Fashion Square Mall. The
proposal consists of a full sector array containing six panel antennas with the
capability of expanding up to 12 total antennas. The supporting ground
equipment will be contained within a prefabricated equipment shelter at the base
of the tower. The antenna will be placed near the top of the tower at 240’.
There are currently approximately 4 array antennas, whip and flush mounted
antennas and micro-wave dishes that are owned by other providers on the tower.

·The applicant is proposing an additional array antenna on the
tower, which will require an amendment to the conditions of the previously
approved special use permit that required that any additional antennas be flush
mounted. The County’s Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy recommends
against co-locations as well as array antennas and recommends the use of flush
mounted antennas. Although the existing monopole does have an already negative
visual impact by adding an additional array at the top of the monopole, staff’s
opinion is that it results in additional visual impact.

·The applicant is also requesting modification of Section
5.1.40.c.4 and 5.1.40.c.5, which states that a tree conservation plan be
submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit and that the installation,
operation and maintenance be in accordance with the tree conservation plan.
There are no existing trees in the immediate vicinity of the facility that will
be impacted.

·The Architectural Review Board voted to allow staff to review and
approve the application if an addition of the screening shrubbery currently
proposed that the Entrance Corridor be provided street trees and some screening
of the dumpster.

·Staff has found that that the proposal is not consistent with the
County’s Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy, and therefore recommends
denial. If the Commission approves the personal wireless facility, the proposal
will require the approval of modifications of Sections 5.1.40.c.4 and 5.1.40c.5
as well as the approval of the deletion of the provisions 3c from the previous
approved special use permit that only flush mounted antennas be permitted.
Also, the applicant contacted staff today about changing the language for
condition 5. Those changes have been made. Instead of the “permittee” they
requested that if this application was approved that it be changed to “current
owner and any subsequent owners of the tower.”

Mr. Cannon noted that he
received a letter from the applicant that responds to some of the findings and
the staff report. He was trying to reconcile the staff findings with the
contentions of the applicant. Staff makes a finding that there will be
additional visual impact from another array on the existing monopole. At the
same time staff says that there would not be a detriment to the adjacent
property or a lack of harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district.
He was trying to put those two things together and understand the significance,
if any, of the visual impact that staff detects. There is additional visual
impact because there is something that is going to be there that is not there
now. He asked if that was a significant or a material visual additional impact
in staff’s view.

Ms. Yaniglos said that the way
the analysis is done is that staff looks at Section 31 in the Wireless Policy.
In the Wireless Policy review staff found that it is going to have an adverse
impact since an array was discouraged as being highly visible. Staff did not
think that it is going to be a significant detriment to the adjacent property
because there are already existing arrays on that tower.

Mr. Cannon said that there is
visual impact, which staff describes as an adverse impact but not detrimental to
the adjacent properties. He asked if it was a significant impact.

Mr. Fritz noted that there are
two things that are going on here. In Section 31.2.4.1 it talks about whether
or not it is a substantial detriment to adjacent properties. Is it somehow
going to infringe upon the ability to use an adjacent property? Staff
determined that it would not. Is it going to change the character of the area?
Staff found that it would to an extent, but not significantly because there is
already a facility there. But, one of the other criteria is if it is consistent
with the supplemental regulations and the Personal Wireless Policy. That is
where it comes in to say that visibility is the key to the Wireless Policy and
while it may not have a substantial detrimental impact it is not going to
infringe upon the ability of the adjacent property to be used. It does have a
visibility impact, which is discouraged in the Comprehensive Plan. Since it is
not being mitigated staff, cannot find that it is consistent with the Wireless
Policy, the Comprehensive Plan and Section 5 of the supplemental regulations.
Therefore, staff is finding that it has additional adverse impacts as stated by
the adopted Wireless Policy.

Mr. Cannon asked if a flush
mounted antenna would not have adverse visual impacts.

Ms. Yaniglos replied no and
pointed out that there was already an existing flush mounted antenna on the
monopole. The flush mounted antenna is only 12” from the face of the pole.

Mr. Cannon asked if the arrays
look like candelabras, and Ms. Yaniglos agreed and that the proposed array would
sit 10’ from the top of the tower.

Mr. Fritz pointed out that the
Wireless Policy talks about if the facility is going to be visible, as is the
case here, that it talks about methods to mitigate that impact. Some of the
techniques are utilizing an opportunity site and by using the design techniques
such as the color flush mounting.

Ms. Joseph asked if the
proposal would be before the Planning Commission if it was for flush mounting.

Mr. Fritz replied that it would
still be before the Planning Commission as a Tier III facility.

Mr. Fritz replied that it was
complex. The staff report says that from a visibility perspective co-location
should be discouraged. By co-locating there can be cumulative effects that
cause adverse visual impacts. The Wireless Policy also identifies this as an
opportunity site, which the policy encourages. But, it does so in such a way as
saying that merely the fact that it is an opportunity site does not trump
everything else. By having bad design adverse visual impacts are created and
visibility is the guiding principle of the Wireless Policy. That is why staff
is not able to support the request.

Ms. Porterfield asked if the
applicant can achieve the same results with flush mounted antennas that they
could with the array.

Mr. Fritz suggested that they
ask the applicant. But, that is not a component of staff’s review at all. The
component of staff’s review is what are the visibility impacts caused by the
proposal. If they get lesser coverage area, for example, by bringing it down
and using an alternative antennae technique, they may need to have more sites.
That was recommended by the Wireless Policy. The Wireless Policy also says that
they are going to review those other sites to see whether they have adverse
visual impacts and mitigate it that way. Staff does not look at that and can’t
answer the question.

Ms. Joseph asked how many 250’
towers are located in the county.

Mr. Fritz replied that he did
not know, but there are not a lot. This is actually pretty indicative of a
maturing wireless network. The wireless facilities shown on this particular
facility are not at the top. What they do is as the system matures they need to
lower it to shrink the coverage area so it does not bleed into the other cells.
When this particular facility was first used everybody was up at the top, but
has been coming down and lowering over the years. As Verizon gets more sites
they may have to lower this particular one, but that is not what is before the
Planning Commission now.

Mr. Kamptner requested to ask a
question regarding Mr. Sipe’s letter. They are proposing to remove the existing
mount, which would be about 10’ above where they propose to put the array. He
asked if that factored into staff’s impact analysis. Also, is that just a
mounting structure and there are no antennas attached to that one.

Mr. Fritz replied that there
are no antennas.

Mr. Cannon questioned the size
of the mount.

Mr. Morris suggested that they
get that information from the applicant. He opened the public hearing and
invited the applicant to address the Planning Commission.

Maynard Sipe, representative
for Verizon Wireless and attorney with LeClair Ryan noted that also attending
tonight are Mathew Winstead and Stephen Waller, consultants to Verizon. Verizon
Wireless is seeking to have the same opportunity as other carriers have been
given to provide quality wireless service to this particular area of the
county. He presented a power-point presentation and explained the proposal, as
follows.

·The Wireless Policy, as discussed, favors using existing
structures that are called opportunity sites. There is no disagreement that
this is an opportunity site. There is language that discourages the full sector
arrays, but it does not bar them. The Policy does not deal in absolutes, which
he thought that was partly because it is a policy that means it is general in
nature. It is not intended to address every unique situation or every site
because of particular conditions on that site. That leads to why they have the
special use permit review. A site specific evaluation is always necessary on
these types of applications, in particular on cell phone tower applications like
this due to the Telecommunications Act.

·The first unique factor about this site is demand. This site is
anticipated to have a high demand. That is self evident because of the volume
of users who will be in the area of the Route 29 and Rio Road intersection. It
is also intended to serve some residents and businesses in the area. Verizon
Wireless is not just targeting the mobile user in their car, but also trying to
provide broad band and other services to in-building users, which are businesses
and residences. This demand is what really calls for the need of a full array.
It actually responds to the demand. The full arrays are needed for technical
reasons in order to respond to that demand. The full array is not needed to
provide coverage. The footprint from the coverage from this tower is not
different with the full array than it might be with the flush mount. The
difference is the capacity of calls that they will be able to handle and the
quality of the signal. A full array allows that the flush mounts do not allow
is for spatial diversity. By having the multiple antenna panels on the array
the antennas are set somewhat apart and that allows multiple antennas to receive
the signal coming to them so that they can overcome issues from interference of
the fading in and out of the signal. There is more than one antenna possible
handling that. They have to be space ably diverse so they are not in the same
exact line of site for the signal. It does reflect on the quality of the
wireless service that they can provide to this area. The visual impact has been
discussed, which is there already. That is a fundamental premise to keep in
mind. The visibility of the proposed array is mitigated by several factors,
which is outlined in the letter to the Planning Commission dated May 30, 2008.
They think that they are important.

·Staff had done the review with the special use permit criteria,
which Mr. Cannon asked about. He felt that it was important that staff found
that they meet the special use permit criteria. If the visual impact was
significant enough, he did not think that they would be able to meet those
criteria. But, they do in this case. He presented the proposed landscape plan,
which Verizon Wireless is offering to do as part of the special use permit. The
Architectural Review Board found no significant impact on the Entrance
Corridor. The ARB did have a concern about screening the ground equipment.

·He asked the Planning Commission to approve the request with two
additional conditions. One condition makes a reference to the landscape plan,
which was handed out. It requires administrative approval by staff because
there may be some slight changes in the specifics of it. The second is that
they are willing to agree that the proposed array will not project further from
the monopole than the existing arrays already on the tower. Therefore, they are
limiting how far the array will project out from the monopole. That condition
was in place with the Carrsbrook application recently approved and they felt it
was appropriate for this application as well. He suggested that the condition
state that the array would not project further than the widest array. The
existing arrays do not differ that much in the size even though they look
different in the photos.

Ms. Porterfield asked if there
arrays currently on the monopole for other wireless providers.

Mr. Sipe replied yes, that the
current providers on the monopole include AT&T, Ntelos, Nextel, ALLTEL, U.S.
Cellular, Embarq and Team Mobile.

Mr. Loach said that he said
they could use flush mounted antennas, but this was better from a technical
perspective. He asked from the flush mount to this array what the factor of
improvement was that they would get from not using flush mounted antennas.

Mr. Sipe replied that he could
not answer the question because it was so technical. But, the demand as noted
previously was self evident. They feel the full array is necessary to
accommodate the demand. He was told by their engineer that if they don’t have
approval of the full array they will need additional sites in this immediate
area. Of course, those additional sites will have some impacts potentially.

Mr. Cannon asked if they were
to approve this with the panel array there would not be the necessity for
additional sites in this immediate area, and Mr. Sipe replied yes.

Matt Winstead, project manager
for Verizon Wireless, said that it would be at least double, but did not know
for sure. Their engineer would have a better answer. It is not necessarily a
capacity issue because the engineer explained that they could get the same
number of calls with flush mount, but the signal quality with the additional
calls would diminish. With more callers on the line at one time the multiple
antennas will be able to receive all of those calls at once with more quality so
that there is no degrading of signal. This area is so well developed that it is
going to have high usage as soon as the network comes on line. This location is
a good option for Verizon Wireless.

Ms. Porterfield asked if it had
to be mounted at this height.

Mr. Winstead replied that their
engineer had explained that they were trying to cover a larger area than most of
their treetop facilities. That is why the full array is also needed in order to
avoid having to build other towers.

Mr. Sipe said that there is
obviously some concern for visibility for this existing tower. He asked the
Planning Commission to draw a clear distinction between this existing tower and
their proposal and its additional impact. In this case the incremental change
in the visual impact proposed by their array is really not significant enough to
warrant discrimination against Verizon Wireless as opposed to the other carriers
who have been allowed to locate on this tower. He requested the Commission’s
recommendation of approval so they can provide the quality of service to this
area.

Mr. Morris invited public
comment. There being none, he closed the public hearing to bring the matter
before the Commission.

Mr. Strucko asked staff if the
applicant’s proposal to remove the top mounting bracket factor into their
opinion regarding the visual impact.

Ms. Yaniglos replied that it
did not. She was strictly looking at the arrays.

Ms. Porterfield asked if staff
was literally going with what is in the ordinance.

Ms. Yaniglos said that staff
went by what is in the Wireless Policy and the ordinance.

Ms. Joseph said that there was
a reason in the original special use permit approval that would have to be
changed for this tower because they were asking for a flush mounted because it
is less visible. They are not being discriminatory in this if they would allow
it for flush mounted antennas. She agreed with staff that it would be a lot
more visible unless they decided to use flush mounted antennas. She recalled
Charlotte Humphries asking how this tower got out there. But, since it is
non-conforming they have to deal with it the best they can. She would like to
deal with it with flush mounted instead of the arrays.

Mr. Strucko agreed with Ms. Joseph. His line of
questioning was to try to get at mitigation. He believed that a bad situation
could be made worse by continuing to heap on to it. One more array will make a
bad situation worse. He could accept this proposal if indeed the top bracket
was removed and the array was roughly the same size as the bracket since the net
visual impact would be zero. But condition 11 tells them that it is not going
to be, but would be a wider array than the mounting bracket itself. Therefore,
he would not be supportive for this proposal for the reasons already expressed
by Ms. Joseph. He questioned what an array gets us that a flush mount would
not, which was brought up by Mr. Loach.

Mr. Loach noted that he did not get a feeling from the
previous discussion that the full array was going to create a factor far above
that which he would trade the visual impact from the flush mounted array.

Motion: Mr. Cannon
moved for approval of amendment of the SP-2008-00012, Embarq-Verizon Wireless-
Tier III PWSF, to permit the array proposed by the applicant on this tower with
the conditions as identified in the staff report on pages 9 and 10 with the 2
additional conditions as submitted by the applicant, including conditions 10 and
11, as amended that no antennas shall project from the monopole to a distance
that is greater than the narrowest existing antenna array.

Ms. Yaniglos pointed out that
staff had amended condition 5 to state “that the current owner and any
subsequent owners of the tower” to replace “the permitee.”

Mr. Cannon added to the motion
with the amendment to condition 5.

Mr. Strucko questioned the
change to condition 11 because he thought the applicant had stated the widest.

Mr. Cannon agreed that the
applicant proposed the widest. But, he felt that the language is inconclusive.
He was substituting a more restrictive interpretation, which was consistent with
the visual representation that the applicant provided of the likely visual
affect of the array. If the applicant could not accept that condition, then he
would withdraw the motion.

Ms. Porterfield noted that the
motion was to approve the array as presented by the applicant, except that it
can be no larger than the smallest array on the pole. They are not flush
mounting, but it would be an array.

Mr. Sipe responded that the
Commission has the right to replace conditions. For clarity he suggested using
the term “full sectored panel antennae array.”

Mr. Cannon asked if that means
to exclude flush mounted arrays.

Mr. Sipe asked that the
condition be made clearer so that this does not include flush mounted arrays.

Mr. Cannon asked if the 5
candelabras were accurately described.

Mr. Sipe replied that it was
“full sector panel antennae arrays.”

Mr. Cannon noted that was his
intent.

Mr. Morris asked if this could
be made effective and keep it within the size of the current bracket.

Mr. Sipe replied that he did
not have the measurements of the current bracket. To tie that down he suggested
noting that it was the 5 existing full sectored panel antennae arrays. That
would tie them to the 5 that is seen on the tower today. Condition 5 helps
clarify the type of antenna array they are talking about.

Mr. Kamptner referred the
Commission to page 29. The current top full sectored antenna array appears to
be much closer to the pole than the other four.

Mr. Cannon noted that it
appeared to be the same size, but not significantly.

Mr. Morris agreed that it was
hard to distinguish it.

Mr. Fritz noted that there are
five existing arrays. The way it is written staff would interpret that the
smallest of those is the one they would use.

Mr. Strucko asked what a
mounting bracket is used for. He asked if the mounting bracket could be
reinstalled without any action by the Commission.

Mr. Fritz replied that he did
not think that the existing brackets could be reused with the existing
conditions. He did not know if the applicant could reuse the mounting
brackets. He did not know the conditions of it and whether it was compatible
with the proposed antennae type or the holes for the mounting brackets. He
could not guarantee that the mounting brackets could be reused.

Mr. Strucko asked if this
application would prevent the reinstallation of that mounting bracket. He noted
that the applicant could remove it, but could he put it back.

Mr. Fritz replied that if the
special use permit was not approved, the answer is no.

Mr. Cannon pointed out that was
his motion.

Mr. Morris restated the motion
for approval with conditions as set forth by the staff 1-9 with the
modifications of condition 5 and the addition of conditions 10 and 11 with
further modification of condition 11.

Mr. Cannon noted that condition
11 would be that no antennas shall project from the monopole to a distance that
is greater than that of the narrowest of the five existing full sector panel
antennae arrays on the pole.

Mr. Strucko asked if the motion
should include a statement about removing the bracket.

Mr. Cannon added that the
applicant shall remove the bracket at the top of the pole as shown in the staff
report.

Mr. Fritz recommended the
condition read that the existing mounting bracket to be removed as shown on
Attachment A.

Mr. Cannon amended the
condition to adopt Mr. Fritz’s version.

Ms. Porterfield seconded the
motion.

As summarized in the action
memo the Planning Commission took the following action:

Motion: Mr. Cannon
moved, Ms. Porterfield seconded for approval of SP-2008-012, Embarq-Verizon
Wireless – Tier III PWSF to permit the array proposed by the applicant on this
tower with conditions 1 - 9 recommended by staff, as amended in condition 5, and
with the two (2) additional conditions submitted by the applicant, as modified.

The tower shall not be increased in height;

All antennae, dishes and their replacements attached to the tower shall be
used for personal wireless service providers;

Additional and replacement antenna arrays may be attached only as follows:

Omni-directional or whip antennas shall not exceed twenty (20) feet in
height or seven (7) inches in diameter, and shall be of a color that
matches the tower;

Directional or panel antennas shall not exceed seven (7) feet in height
or two (2) feet in width, and shall be of a color that matches the
tower;

Existing arrays of directional and panel antennas that are mounted with
brackets that separate them by more than (12) inches from the structure
may remain. This condition shall not pertain to the maintenance and/or
replacement of a single panel antenna that malfunctions or is in need of
repair.

Not more than six (6) satellite or microwave dishes may be attached to the
tower at one time, and only as follows.

The existing six (6) foot diameter grid dish that is subject to this
request may be replaced by the specified six (6) foot diameter High
Performance dish at a height that is not more than 95.5 feet;

Other existing satellite and microwave dishes may be replaced on the
tower by the same type of dish, provided that the diameter of the
replacement dish does not exceed the diameter of the dish being removed,
the color of the replacement dish matches the tower, and the mounting
height does not exceed that of the dish being replaced;

Other existing satellite and microwave dishes may be replaced on the
tower by a different type of dish if the mounting height is no less than
twenty (20) feet below that of the dish being removed, the diameter of
the replacement dish does not exceed that of the dish being removed, and
the color of the replacement dish matches the tower;

Other existing satellite and microwave dishes may be replaced by a
different type of dish if the proposed mounting height of the
replacement dish does not satisfy the height requirements of condition
4c with the written approval of the Zoning Administrator. This approval
shall only be granted after the submission of a microwave path survey
indicating that the proposed replacement dish will be mounted at the
lowest possible height that allows the system to function. In such a
case, the path survey shall demonstrate the reason(s) why the proposed
height is the lowest possible height, but in no case shall the
replacement be higher than the dish it is replacing;

All replacement satellite or microwave dishes shall be mounted as close
to the face of the pole as structurally and mechanically possible and,
in no case, shall the distance between the back of the dish and the face
of the pole be greater than eighteen (18) inches; and

Prior to the issuance of a building permit for replacing a dish, the
applicant shall provide engineered drawings demonstrating the dimensions
of the existing dish to be removed and its replacement dish, and
additional information demonstrating the mounting distance between the
pole and the dish to the Department of Building Code and Zoning
Services.

5.The current owner and any subsequent owners of the towershall
submit a report to the Zoning Administrator once (1) per year, by not later than
July 1 of that year. The report shall identify each user of the tower and that
each user is a personal wireless communications service provider;

The permittee shall comply with Section 5.1.12c of the Zoning Ordinance; and

The facility shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety
(90) days of the date its use for personal wireless communications services
purposes is discontinued. If the Zoning Administrator determines at any
time that surety is required to guarantee that the facility will be removed
as required, the permittee shall furnish to the Zoning Administrator a
certified check, a bond with surety satisfactory to the County, or a letter
of credit satisfactory to the County, in an amount sufficient for, and
conditioned upon, the removal of the facility. The type of surety guarantee
shall be to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and the County
Attorney.

All work shall be done in
general accord with what is described in the applicant's request and site
construction plans, entitled “Rio Road, Embarq Property”, with a final
zoning drawing submittal date of 3/10/2008.

The following shall be
submitted to the agent after installation of the antenna is completed and
prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy: (i) certification by a
registered surveyor stating the height of the antenna, measured both in feet
above ground level and in elevation above mean sea level, using the
benchmarks or reference datum identified

The applicant shall
provide landscaping along Rio Road East generally as shown on the Landscape
Plan by J. Thomas Dalton sealed 5-21-08, with a final landscaping plan to be
administratively approved by staff.

No antennas shall project
from the monopole to a distance that is greater than that of the narrowest
of the five (5) existing full sector panel antennae arrays on the pole. The
existing mounting bracket to be removed as shown on Attachment A.